beta
Text
1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (from July 6, 2007 to September 30, 2014) and the Appointor B (from March 6, 2006 to February 28, 2015) asserted that the Plaintiff sought payment of retirement allowances, etc. to the Defendant as follows.
① Plaintiff: 65,020,000 won (i.e., monthly salary of KRW 4,640,000 which was voluntarily reduced by KRW 10,095,00 for retirement pay of KRW 30,285,000) (20,000 for consolation money of KRW 53,157,490 for retirement pay of KRW 20,517,490 for retirement pay of KRW 20,517,490 for retirement pay of KRW 8,610,00 for unpaid settlement of the amount of KRW 4,303,00 for monthly salary of KRW 20,00 for retirement pay of KRW 20,00 for retirement pay of KRW 53,157,490)
2. According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 23 and Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each number), the following circumstances, namely, the trade name of the Japanese company and the defendant company, which the plaintiff and the selected party Eul worked, are identical to that of the corporation, and its representative director is also the same. However, the defendant company was established on June 25, 2010 when several years have elapsed since the plaintiff and the selected party worked in the Japanese company, and was established and operated as an independent separate corporation which is not a branch of the Japanese company, and the plaintiff et al. were employed after concluding a labor contract with the Japanese company in accordance with the Japanese law, corresponding to the Japanese law.
Comprehensively taking account of the fact that there was no evidence to deem that the Defendant Company concluded a labor contract with the Defendant Company, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone cannot be deemed as the party liable to pay retirement allowances, etc. to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant Company’s assertion of the Plaintiff, etc. on a different premise is without merit.
3. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.